Justice Triumphs

Or does it. Perhaps not exactly. Might be our Supreme Court Justices and our Federal Courts of Justice are fixated on interpretations of our laws that satisfy their personal sense of justice, totally oblivious of the real world in which we now live. Or, illogically, because of it, despite it, demonstrating a noble willingness to take chances that perhaps the rest of society would far rather not. They are of the shared opinion that they are imbued with the kind of wisdom not shared by the great unwashed.

Nor, for that matter, with the Government of Canada itself, or its security and policing agencies. Some discord in perception there. Which might not matter all that much, if it didn't matter in fact and reality - enormously. Enter the triumph of skewed reasoning; welcome the assaults on our right to self protection. Why are the esteemed justices supremely correct, one might ask in all innocence, freeing those whom government and its agencies are concerned pose a threat to the country?

When Canada Immigration and Canadian Security Intelligence Service are sufficiently concerned of the prospects of an individual bringing harm to the country, that they refuse that individual citizenship and undertake efforts to deport him to his country of origin, how is it that the legal system, trumpeting the right of self-defence and Charter guarantees, feel confident of jerking the rug out from under security certificates and/or deportation orders?

Federal Justice Department lawyers insist that Adil Charkaoui poses a threat to the country, as an al-Qaeda sleeper agent. CSIS denies the charges by Mr. Charkaoui and his lawyers that there is unreliable evidence linking him to terrorism: "CSIS stands by the accuracy and reliability of its information submitted in the security certificate issued against Adil Charkaoui". Disclosure of the information requested by Judge Tremblay-Lamer would have resulted in disruption to intelligence gathering.

So, six years following the man's arrest and detaining as an al-Qaeda agent, Adil Charkaoui is a free man, after Justice Daniele Tremblay-Lamer made the determination that the secret evidence against him simply was not sufficiently persuasive to her. Ruling that all conditions be lifted covering his release on bail. Government is set to appeal, and if successful, plans to issue another security certificate to have the man deported to Morocco.

The government and its security agencies claim to have more than adequate knowledge and the assurance that this man is a member of al-Qaeda, trained in terror camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan and is a familiar of other Islamist fanatics. Some of which information has been corroborated to government's satisfaction. For his part, a triumphant Mr. Charkaoui is willing to accept an apology from the federal government.

Upon which he can feel himself free to launch a lawsuit to compensate for his hardships. And he will be satisfied to remain in Canada, good name restored, compensation banked. He will have to stand in line with his lawsuit, since there are others that have been launched by yet other hyphenated-Canadians whose rights as Canadians have been under assault by our elected representatives.

Not the least of which is Abousfian Abdelrazik, who blames the government for his travails, as well. He is prepared to accept $27-million to make him feel better about his misfortunes. Interesting how other countries handle these situations in other ways. Take, for example, Yemen-born Modhar Abdullah who came to Ottawa in 1998, studied at Algonquin College for a while, before heading off to the United States.

Charged there with aiding and abetting, and being intimately involved with other terrorists, and who claimed to have known the 9/11 attackers, and of being in possession of knowledge of their imminent attack. Without adequate evidence to charge him he was discharged from prison and departed to Yemen in 2004. New information since coming to light may yet see the FBI renew its investigation.

Do we have to wait until some fanatical Islamist clique, imported or home-drafted, deploys successfully and visits a catastrophe on the country before our judiciary takes the danger they represent seriously? Seriously, if public safety and security agencies in their professional capacity to defend this country are convinced they have uncovered a presence deleterious to the country, why not simply deport?

Why is it that someone who is a resident, but not a citizen of the country, whom the government wants to deport, is able to call on the law to defend his 'rights' under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Do law-abiding ordinary citizens of multifarious heritages in this pluralist-society have no protections under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?